Adblock Plus Will Soon Block Fewer Ads

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by siljaline, Dec 12, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    Those don't seem like a big deal.

    The point is to block ads purely based on how heavy/ loud/ annoying they are. Not whether or not they're from big companies or whatever.
     
  2. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    9,027
    Location:
    Lloegyr
    That's a good point. I suppose the most successful companies don't need such annoying ads, although, that could be why they were so successful in the first place. ;)
     
  3. ABee

    ABee Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Posts:
    330
    What an incredibly enjoyable thread. Five pages worth over a non-issue.

    Uncheck the box. Gee, I'm pretty sure I'm technically advanced enough to be able to do that.

    The vast majority of internet users do not block ads, regardless of what browser they may be using. The internet will not crumble and fall because a relative handful of us do block them.

    In the time since I've upgraded to the latest version of AdBlock Plus-- with the 'allow non-intrusive ads' box unchecked-- I've seen no difference whatsoever in any blocking or non-blocking behavior within the ABP extension.

    The only issue here at all is how a 'non-intrusive ad' can or might be defined.

    But at the time, I didn't have anything better to do with the fifteen minutes it took me to read through this thread, so therefore I don't feel used or cheated.

    Happy New Year to all! May your ads remain blockable throughout 2012, and beyond!
     
  4. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    Lol, I'm fine with no one else seeing how I see it and had no intentions of arguing who is right or wrong (no one is right or wrong, it's do you care or don't you, no more complicated than that). My point is only that he went about it the wrong way and it looks weird to have an advertising company funding his project. I'm just going to end my part of it here as my belief and issue with the situation has been stated. ABee is right, 5 pages is enough. You're in one camp or you're in another. Take care all.
     
  5. HKEY1952

    HKEY1952 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Posts:
    657
    Location:
    HKEY/SECURITY/ (value not set)
    Very well stated.....Case Closed.

    However, the developer gives the end user the option to choose YEA or NAY, still,

    The 'option' to: "Allow non-intrusive advertising"
    is an example of the science of logical analysis embeded into software.


    HKEY1952
     
  6. m00nbl00d

    m00nbl00d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Posts:
    6,623
    What's most concerning, from my point of view, is not whether it has this or that. It's rather what may come from the displayed ads. It wouldn't be the first time and wouldn't be the last that people's system got infected because of hijacked advertisements in websites, being loaded by third-parties.

    That was my first thought when I heard of this white list. I ask: How many people out there are running Adblock Plus because someone else installed it for them?

    I installed it to relative who otherwise wouldn't know about it. They don't know/don't want to know how to use it. They just know it blocks ads, and that it has security benefits, due to hijacked ads redirecting website visitors to websites hosting exploits.

    All of a sudden, they will have it allowing ads automatically. I'm on top of it, but I could very well not be, for various reasons that happen in life.

    This white list thing should be disabled by default, and those wanting to allow the white list, knowing about the potential risks that could come from it, enable it. It should be an opt-in, not an opt-out.

    If what user ABee says is true...

    ... that the vast majority of Internet users don't block ads, then why not opt-in instead of opt-out? It also makes one wonder how bad would a website be hurt by the smaller % of Internet users blocking ads, by default?

    I'm all for allowing non-intrusive ads, as long as they are first-party ads. All third-party ads get blocked. That's always been my approach.
     
  7. m00nbl00d

    m00nbl00d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Posts:
    6,623
    -edit-

    I'd just like to add that when the user's security is part of the equation, then all aspects of the equation should be considered. As an Internet user and websites visitor, I shouldn't have to allow my system to be infected due to exploits, that resulted from allowing ads, for the sake of keeping the Internet alive. First, it's my security that concerns me; if these other parties cannot do their work to keep me safe, without having to worry about hijacked websites ads, then I shouldn't be forced to allow ads, specially if I wouldn't know how to turn it off in the first place.

    So, the big question is: Can these parties guarantee my safety while visiting websites displaying their ads?

    That's my take on it. Bite all you like... :D :p
     
  8. guest

    guest Guest

    Isn't it obvious? ADB+ user-base is growing consistently.

    The move was needed, the move is right.

    As for the risk of hijacked advertisements, it's pretty much the same risk of hijacked legitimate websites. Maybe lower.

    If you are really scared, your best bet is avoiding getting online.

    Yeah, I don't care for those lazy normal persons who have pet geeks doing everything for them... they better educate themselves. lol
     
  9. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    If there were a significant number of Adblock Plus users (I don't think there are but I have not seen any recent stats) than maybe the whitelisted ads would be targeted more often.

    As it stands I don't see this as too big a security issue.
     
  10. HKEY1952

    HKEY1952 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Posts:
    657
    Location:
    HKEY/SECURITY/ (value not set)
    Adblock Plus Statistics - Firefox (as of 12/26/2011):
    https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/statistics/addon/1865


    HKEY1952
     
  11. m00nbl00d

    m00nbl00d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Posts:
    6,623
    I'm not talking about targeting the whitelisted ads. lol As it is, it happens more than we'd wish that advertising servers get compromised, and when visiting a website users get their systems compromised due to exploits.

    Cyber criminals don't need to target whitelisted ads, they're doing just fine as it is. lol

    That's one of the reasons why I make my relatives block ads. The other reasons being a total waste of monthly traffic, which equals loss of traffic to be used on stuff that's really important.

    Now, due to this whitelisting opt-out crap, how many users will be unknowingly allowing ads? How many of them simply have ABP+ installed by other people, and will be clueless of what's happening right now? The issue, IMHO, is being an opt-out and not opt-in. It should be opt-in. That would be the decent approach.

    @ guest

    I'm not saying anything against the move. I'm talking about how the move was done. It's opt-out.

    Also, I think it was mentioned before by someone else, users can already whitelist ads in ABP+. With the new approach, we can block them all and still whitelist on our own, or we can use the default whitelist.

    So, if we can still whitelist and block the default whitelist, why not leave things as they were?

    Supposing that all ABP+ users are aware of this change, and that they all already knew they could already whitelist ads before and they did, then what is this all about? Ads could already be whitelisted.

    If this approach is to allow smaller services to survive, if users were blocking before, they will block now as well, by opting-out of the default whitelist.
    It simply doesn't make much sense to me.

    Regarding the security issue of the ads, by blocking third-party ads, it's one less headache to be concerned about. As for the hijacked legitimate websites... I could ask the same for just about anything on the Internet. lol Why do we even bother coming to Wilders? Don't we fear it being hijacked? :D :argh:

    My point was only that, just because Y may happen, we don't need to allow X to happen first. :D
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.